Hush money and congress?

It is not a noble thing to do, cheating on a spouse.

But what would the Clintons do if confronted by an accuser?

Slander and intimidate your (or your husband's) accusers?

The trashing of Bill’s accusers: What did Hillary do – and why?​

Larry Elder

Hillary Clinton has never been asked whether she verbally intimidated alleged rape survivor Juanita Broaddrick. Nor has Clinton been asked whether she spearheaded the so-called “nuts and sluts” strategy to silence and intimidate women who alleged affairs with or sexual abuse by Bill Clinton.

The books “Hell to Pay” by Barbara Olson and “No One Left to Lie To” by Christopher Hitchens depict Hillary Clinton as the puppet master behind the hiring of lawyers and private detectives to dig up dirt on her husband’s accusers. Bolstering the credibility of Hitchens’ book is a foreword written by respected historian Douglas Brinkley, a frequent guest on CNN, MSNBC and other networks.

Is this true?

Attorney Larry Klayman, who worked in the U.S. Justice Department, runs Freedom Watch, a government watchdog group. He founded Judicial Watch, also a watchdog group, which was, at one time, known as Bill Clinton’s “nemesis.” But Judicial Watch also filed lawsuits against President George W. Bush’s administration for its alleged improprieties.

Klayman has represented nearly all of Bill Clinton’s best-known accusers, including Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Dolly Kyle Browning.

I recently asked him about Hillary’s role, if any, in impugning these women.

Elder: “Why do you suppose has Hillary never — to my knowledge — been asked, point-blank, ‘Did you or did you not verbally intimidate an alleged rape survivor by the name Juanita Broaddrick, as she alleges you did?’”

Klayman: “I don’t think anybody’s had the guts to do it. ... But the hard reality here is ... Hillary Clinton started what was called the ‘war room.’ ... This is ... in the campaign of 1992, which elected her husband. George Stephanopoulos was part of that. James Carville was part of it. And the purpose of the war room — and Stephanopoulos ... of course ... doesn’t want to discuss this — was to destroy any woman that would challenge Bill Clinton, because she knew, undoubtedly, that if her husband didn’t make it to the White House, that someday she wouldn’t make it to the White House, either. ... She wanted to protect her own interests, and to do that she had to destroy the women who she knew were going to come forward and reveal the alleged sexual harassment and rape, and the intimidation that was about ready to be leveled against these women to keep them quiet.”

Elder: “What can you tell us about what Hillary did? What was her role in all of this?”

Klayman: “We know from the various women who had contact. Some of them had contact with Hillary Clinton in Arkansas. They know her way of doing business. ... And Stephanopoulos and Carville himself effectively admitted it when they did that documentary, ‘The War Room.’ It was Hillary who was at the top of that. She was the one who called the shots. And the private detectives who were sicced on these women ... were hired by Hillary Clinton. I took the deposition of (one) and confirmed that (he was) hired through Hillary’s lawyer. So there’s a lot of different evidence here, direct and circumstantial, that places Hillary at the center of these acts against the women.”

Elder: “The most serious allegation, of course, is the one by Juanita Broaddrick. She claims that when Bill Clinton was Arkansas attorney general, he raped her, and two weeks later, at some campaign function, Hillary came up to her and verbally intimidated her, saying things to her, according to Broaddrick, that made it clear: Keep your mouth shut, or else.”

Klayman: “One of the private detectives broke into her house and took an answering-machine tape ... to make sure there was no evidence of what had occurred. These were the kind of things that have been done. ... They would have the private detectives — for instance, Kathleen Willey experienced this — she was riding her bike one day and one of these private detectives, or one of his agents, rode up to her on another bike and mentioned the names of her children in a very sinister way. ‘How are your children, Ms. Willey?’ In fact, that happened to me during a deposition at Judicial Watch, where one of the lawyers that were representing the Clintons — shortly after my daughter was born — mentioned her name. And there was no way of knowing that. They wanted us to know that they were watching us ... that we were at risk.”

Elder: “I’ve interviewed Kathleen Willey, and I’ve said to her, as I’m saying to you, when people came by and made threats and said names and suggested she should ‘watch it,’ you still can’t trace that to Hillary.”

Klayman: “In a court of law, it’s not just direct but circumstantial evidence. I gave you a little bit of it. ... If you add it all up ... it creates a pattern where she’s capable of almost anything.”

Hillary Clinton once said that when women allege sexual assault, they “have the right to be believed.” Let’s leave it at this — for now.

Larry Elder
 
Is this an attempt to distract from the actual hush money trial going on right now? Or, perhaps you're not aware of it.
 
grizzly said:
Is this an attempt to distract from the actual hush money trial going on right now? Or, perhaps you're not aware of it.
Click to expand...
That’s seriously funny….a Biden supporter talking about distracting from what’s really going on.

Good one Grizz!
 
And it would be interesting to know how much these trials cost taxpayers. Clearly, the libs who defended Clinton and the pseudo-conservatives who defend Trump will only criticize these expenses when it comes to the "other" side. Meanwhile, normal Americans take a bath in the swamp water.
 
hossblur said:
If hush money is illegal and a campaign finance violation, how many of these are currently charged?
Click to expand...
Remember, the law had to be changed in order to be bring this case.

When democrats can’t campaign on a SINGLE issue they have to find something that distracts from their utter lack of competency running this country.
 
Flyjunky12 said:
Remember, the law had to be changed in order to be bring this case.

When democrats can’t campaign on a SINGLE issue they have to find something that distracts from their utter lack of competency running this country.
Click to expand...

Similar with Carroll

Statute of limitations be damned!

Unless your last name is Biden, then the DOJ will slow walk to be sure the timeframe was too long.


On a sidenote, gotta love how Harvey Weinstein case got tossed in NY.
 
The MSM is now spinning that Trump was interfering in the 2016 election by trying to silence Ms Daniels.

So, is it OK for 51 former intellegance officers to lie and sign the Hunter Biden Laptop "Has all the signs of Russian dissiniformation" letter?

Right before the 2020 debates?
Chrissy Wallace covering for Biden during ther debate?
Leslie Stahl on 60 minutes saying the laptop had been "Debunked" ?

FJB
 
There’s nothing to say except these dems are the biggest pos liars I can ever remember in our govt. They don’t even care to try and hide it anymore.

The other thing is most dem voters know it as well but will never publicly admit it.

What might piss me off even more is the R’s are a bunch of spineless pussies who stab us in the back. At least the D’s lie right to our face.

“Most republicans are really democrats but no democrats are republicans”!
 

WSJ editorial​

Alvin Bragg and Democrats’ ‘Election Interference’​

His theory in New York state’s Trump case is crazier than you think.​


One big election question is whether voters will again fall for Joe Biden’s 2020 pitch: Elect me because Republicans are a “threat to democracy.” If they don’t, Democrats can blame the growing insanity of the Donald Trump prosecutions, which every day look less like fair or sober justice.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s court case—which hinges on the claim that Mr. Trump falsely labeled seven-year-old business records about a nondisclosure-agreement payment to an adult film star—was always tenuous. To elevate this somewhat nonsensical issue to a felony, Mr. Bragg had to claim further the entries were mislabeled with intent to commit or conceal a secondary crime. After months of indecision, Mr. Bragg finally settled on a gotcha, suggesting the NDA payment made by lawyer Michael Cohen was an illegal campaign contribution—even though the money came from the candidate—that Mr. Trump criminally concealed from voters, amounting to election “interference” or “fraud.”

Consider the sheer nuttiness of this argument, especially when spooled to its natural conclusions. Campaigns exist to present a candidate favorably to the public—to highlight good things, hide unpleasant things. If it is felony “election interference” for a candidate to try to keep private the details of a seamy relationship, what other candidate concealments—of a lawful and entirely personal nature—must be reported? Must the out-of-pocket settlement for that fender-bender be disclosed, since it conceals a candidate’s bad driving skills? How about plastic surgery, since it masks the true ravages of age or health? Let’s raise donation caps now, since this will cost a lot.

Better yet, let’s march the entire political class to their jail cells now and save donors and the courts the costs. Many should already be there under the Bragg “concealment” theory. The Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 paid an opposition-research firm to produce a bogus dossier that accused Mr. Trump of collusion with Russia. They fed it to the FBI and leaked it to the public prior to the 2016 election. The DNC and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign reported the expenditures to the Federal Election Commission but concealed their true nature by describing the payments as “legal” services, as Mr. Trump did with his NDA. The FEC fined them for the deception, but under Mr. Bragg’s theory it should count as criminal election interference............

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democr...ry-trump-case-crazier-than-you-think-916f5c66
 
A lawyer was questioned by former President Donald Trump’s defense team in New York on Thursday about his efforts to reach nondisclosure agreements with high-profile figures and whether his work ever amounted to extortion.

Trump’s attorney asked Keith Davidson, who represented two women now entangled in Trump’s hush money case, if he was worried about violating extortion laws when he negotiated payments for his clients.

“You were pretty well-versed in getting right up to the line without committing extortion, right?” Trump attorney Emil Bove asked, according to reports of the court proceedings by CNN.


Davidson responded that he did not understand the question, but when pressed further, he conceded that he “had to be careful” about extortion, a typically illegal practice of threatening people for financial gain.

Bove broached other celebrities, asking if Davidson sought payments from wrestling star Hulk Hogan, actors Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan, and reality TV personality Tila Tequila.

Davidson, a Los Angeles-based lawyer known for his work on nondisclosure settlements, admitted during the questioning that in 2012, he was once investigated for extortion while seeking money from Hogan in exchange for burying a sex tape.

On several occasions, however, Davidson either invoked attorney-client privilege or said he did not recall the work he did for other celebrities.

"Your memory seems a little fuzzy around some of these issues,” Bove observed.

When Bove asked Davidson if he "extracted" payments from the celebrities, a heated exchange ensued.

"We're both lawyers. I'm not here to play lawyer games with you," Bove said.

“You’re getting truthful answers, sir," Davidson said, adding, "If you're not here to play legal games, then don't say 'extract.'"

Davidson is a key witness for prosecutors, who are attempting to prove Trump orchestrated hush money payments to two of Davidson's clients, former Playboy model Karen McDougal and porn star Stormy Daniels, to help his election prospects in 2016.

Davidson negotiated an agreement in the summer of 2016 for a tabloid company to pay McDougal $150,000 to suppress a story about an alleged affair McDougal had with Trump. Later that year, Davidson represented Daniels when he pushed Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen to pay $130,000 to silence her about her alleged relations with Trump. The payments prevented the women's stories from becoming public in the lead-up to the election.


Most of the day in court was centered on Davidson. While prosecutors used Davidson to attempt to prove that Cohen was operating at the behest of Trump as part of a conspiracy to throw the election, Bove illustrated how Davidson's livelihood for years involved shaking down celebrities with threats that embarrassing details about their lives would become public if they did not pay up.

Attorney Andrew Weissmann, a vocal Trump critic, said on X that the "proper" cross-examination would have been "to point out that [Davidson] had NO dealings directly with Trump and then to sit the hell down."

"Instead Bove chose to try to make Davidson out to be a sleaze- odd choice ... One suspects the cross was at the direction of the client, one Donald J. Trump," Weissmann said.

Trump, who is obligated to be present in court every day of the trial, is facing charges that he illegally concealed payments to Daniels after the election. Prosecutors must prove that Trump hid the payments as part of a plot to swing the 2016 election in his favor. Defense attorneys have emphasized that there is nothing illegal about attempting to influence an election.

Davidson spoke carefully during his testimony, defending his legal practices and at one point taking issue with the term "hush money" in reference to the payment he negotiated for Daniels. The money was instead “consideration in a civil settlement,” Davidson said.

Prosecutors scrutinized a 2018 statement Daniels released as they sought to clarify with Davidson the nature of Daniels and Trump's relationship. Daniels in the statement said she was "denying this affair because it never happened," but she later walked back that claim.

Davidson strained to defend the statement, repeatedly saying it was "technically" true and that Trump and Daniels were never "romantic."

Trump spoke with reporters at the end of the day and said he was "very happy about the way things are going."

Asked what he thought about Davidson's testimony, Trump jumped to saying he is "not allowed to testify" because of his gag order. The order, imposed by Judge Juan Merchan, does not restrict Trump from testifying in his trial, but it does prohibit him from speaking about witnesses like Davidson outside of the courtroom.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The Davidson question was "the easiest question so far, but I'm not allowed to testify because this judge is totally conflicted, has me under an unconstitutional gag order," Trump said.

After he left the courthouse, the former president was spotted delivering pizza to a New York City fire station.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

HUNT0568.JPG
100_0041.JPG
B4972078-BC61-48B8-A4F1-BB2CB6411CA2.jpeg
D137ED25-28BB-404A-A973-42397A6A186E.jpeg
1D43F4A6-2511-440E-9EFA-4285B8ACB75C.jpeg
IMG_0647 copy.jpg
2019110295083406.jpg
D3F122A0-9374-4A85-91CA-06C2AF530D2C.jpeg
DED2BA8E-9225-480D-B62A-1D83B62D264B.jpeg
C55A34F3-7C00-4DA0-B7F2-35A4EFB28BF0.png
E851C0FD-C029-43CA-8FFD-BEDD3911242B.jpeg
9F8D1DE5-8004-4D02-9A99-047136A7C1F8.png
Back
Top Bottom